That was the understand the planet part. NASA can't do a lot on the protection front for gloabal warming. My firend Ed Lu is
persuaded it could do something on the asteroid front though.
It costs to much. Not too suprising considering how we're spending money like we can just print more of it. As NASA becomed the
can't do agency, who will fill the void? --
Energy delivered from space with no shipping charge: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Remember, DST came from a guy who lit a candle in his widow before dawn to give the impression he was working hard.
[...]but Dr. Baird (whom you and I saw many years after at his native place, St. Andrew's in Scotland) gave a contrary opinion: "For the industry of that Franklin," says he, "is superior to any thing I ever saw of the kind; I see him still at work when I go home from club, and he is at work again before his neighbors are out of bed."
For some reason Gnome is no longer allowing pasting to an xterm so here is is your post again showing two dashes:
$ date --date="Mar 25 15:00:00 UTC 2006"
$ date --date="Mar 25 15:00:00 UTC 2007"
Works great. Thanks!
This also provides a solution to bandwidth problems. A signal will be observed to propogate at c in all frames so to conserve
energy its frequency must shift. If moving towards a source the frequency is increased an so is the bandwidth. So, if your ISP
is slow, just move towards it very very quickly and you should be able to get satisfactory performance. Obtaining equipment to
implement this kluge is up to you. --
Harvest solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
To be fair, christian apologetics has a huge head start over some of this stuff. St Augustine had a first class intellect and refuted
many of Dawkins' arguments before he ever made them. What is interesting to me is that apologetics also tends to refute attacks on science
such as creationism. The basic argument is that scientific knowledge should strengthen faith and fighting the obvious goes against St.
Paul's urging to do nothing that would harm your brother's growth in faith to take up such a ridiculous cause. For this reason, the greater
maturity of apologetics, I expect the creationism debate to be settled within the Church rather than through public debate with scientists,
which isn't scientific debate at all.
The arguments are simply stronger in apologetics. However, to see this work, there has to be much less pride within the church. I know clergy
who just role their eyes at the creationism issue which, I think, puts them is a poor position to look on the creationists as brothers, a
first step to having concern for their weak faith.
Actually my preist covers this sort of thing pretty often since it comes up in the readings. Quite a lot of the clergy in the Episcopal
Church are influenced by C. S. Lewis and so consider these issues. Suprised By Joy is the place where he discusses his conversion in detail.
Much of it is driven by just these sorts of considerations. The site you give is quite interesting. The exerpt from McGrath's new book is
is quite to the point in this discussion.
Evolution, rightly, avoids discussion of final causes. Theology can't avoid them. Yet, there is inevitability in evolution towards
increased diversity while theology has little authority, by its own admission, to dictate to God how things ought to be accomplished.
I gave a lecture course in Astronomy one summer. I order to get a complete survey of the students, I passed it out
before the final. Needless to say, no matter how bad I was at lecturing, there was definite downward pressure on the
results owing to my timing. The Department Chair spoke to me about it saying he'd never gotten such a high completion
rate and that it was a good thing I was a grad student because if I was faculty I'd be in trouble. Actually, it was
two older students who had a large number of complaints (like having to come to class).
When students judge performance you get some good feedback, but much of my later and better lecturing was improved
by just having a better grasp of the subject. I find that the best teachers are the ones who enjoy how other people
learn. Putting money into opening up this mode of enjoyment would probably be well spent.
-- Now Icarus....http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slas hdot-users-selling-solar.html
Well, actually most models I've seen move up and to the left until turnoff. I was not all that happy with the movie because when
you set it to one solar mass if givens the wrong luminosity and lifetime but it does get the basics of the evolutionary track.
Here is another link that looks like what I remember from grad school, though without references http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/feb23/LMS.htm l. At higher mass what you say may be true. Fig. 10.3 in this link http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/Stars/l10.html shows a 5 solar mass star behaving as you describe.
My mistake was getting the direction of the axis wrong, something every one of my teachers has warned me about.
The mass is not changing much, just the number of particles supporting the star against collapse. This means that T goes up to keep P
constant in the ideal gas law eqn. This is a slow process so that main sequence evolution is much less dramatic than earlier or later
phases. This link to the movie I posted shows a main sequence to red giant evolutionary track. In the movie, the latter phase is much much
faster than the main sequence portion. This initial turn off from the main sequence (the perpendicular motion) is driven by the loss of
thermotatic control of the core temperature provided by fusion. The core temperature increases, increasing the contribution of radiation
which lifts the envelope. The size of the star increase in a way that means that even though the luminosity is increasing the temperature
goes down. Mass loss does come into play later.
Actually they do, only very slowly. There is a famous problem called the Faint Young Sun Paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_parad ox that requires extra greenhouse gasses early on for its resolution. Why does the
Sun slowly brighten? Basically the central mean molecular weight (bad term) increases as hydrogen is converted to helium. This means
more energetic collisions and faster fusion. --
Get fusion power faster: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
I like all three. That Hideous Strength goes more into the banality of evil on an organized scale. Weston's tricks in Perlandra
are writ large in the third book. Lewis also develops the idea of the inner circle as a entry into evil in the third book of the
trilogy.
-- The power of Arbol: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
At least for potestants who take St. Paul seriously, it is Grace that supports or allows belief. That would be a two ways street. But,
many theologians do identify something in the soul that also seeks God. C. S. Lewis was interested in this and looked at levels of inclination
such as loyalty to country, animal's attraction to their keepers as well as darker attractions. His book That Hideous Strength is a good
read. Finding some hardwiring for this would not be too suprising I think. I'd imagine that is would be related to things like filial piety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_piety which actually comes in as a commandment. --
Solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Ooops. Astonomers do everything mixed up and backwards because they don't know what is happening when they first start making plots.
I've made a classic mistake above. Temperature increases to the left in the H-R diagram so stars get hotter as they evolve on the main sequence. They get cooler as they move off the main sequence to the right and become red giants.
You'll see in my comments to this post http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/0 9/2111213 that I am seeking collaborators
to do just that. The idea is to use Fe fertilization to create new and profitable fisheries while at the same time removing CO2 from the
atmosphere. You can get in touch through my home page it you are interested.
I think we actually agree. I reread my post and it clear to me that I said that the lab work shows causation. I would go further and
say that our understanding that the sturcture of planetary atmospheres is essentially a priori when the spectra of their costituents is
taken as given. An argon atmosphere would be very similar to no atmosphere at all owing to argon's high ionization potential and few transitions. It is the forest of mid-infrared rotational-vibrational transitions from molecules with many degrees of freedom that provides
the warming of the surface above what it would be otherwise.
It is important to distinguish between deduction and inference so that we know the limits of our knowledge. The geologic record is largely consistent with our deductive understanding so we may interpret it as supportive but there is insufficient information there to draw the
strongest conclusions. For that, we rely on the lab.
--
Catch the Sun: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, that worked. Do you know why the mouse leaves tracks in gimp?
For me, the trick for getting FC6 going on a pavillion was to toggle the plug and play bios setting http://forum.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php? t=139555&highlight=a1612n and after that things went
pretty smoothly. A have not heard back on my question about why power saving for the screen makes the
mouse disappear. But, for the most part linux does well on this machine. s -selling-solar.html
--
Run your computer on solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
That was the understand the planet part. NASA can't do a lot on the protection front for gloabal warming. My firend Ed Lu is persuaded it could do something on the asteroid front though.
Now we know why protecting Earth was dropped from NASA's mission statement http://www.physorg.com/news72971590.html.
s -selling-solar.html
It costs to much. Not too suprising considering how we're spending money like we can just print more of it. As NASA becomed the can't do agency, who will fill the void?
--
Energy delivered from space with no shipping charge: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
That's how it was for geeks before the invention of Mountain Dew. With the new liquid technology, it is time to scrap DST.
--
The Sun: on time delivery every single day: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
date -d "Mar 25 15:00:00 UTC 2006"
date -d "Mar 25 15:00:00 UTC 2007"
Paste it to a gnome terminal.
For some reason Gnome is no longer allowing pasting to an xterm so here is is your post again showing two dashes:
$ date --date="Mar 25 15:00:00 UTC 2006"
$ date --date="Mar 25 15:00:00 UTC 2007"
Works great. Thanks!
I'm so glad Micro$oft in on top of this. Oh, wait....s -selling-solar.html
--
Real daylight savings: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
This also provides a solution to bandwidth problems. A signal will be observed to propogate at c in all frames so to conserve energy its frequency must shift. If moving towards a source the frequency is increased an so is the bandwidth. So, if your ISP is slow, just move towards it very very quickly and you should be able to get satisfactory performance. Obtaining equipment to implement this kluge is up to you.s -selling-solar.html
--
Harvest solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
To be fair, christian apologetics has a huge head start over some of this stuff. St Augustine had a first class intellect and refuted many of Dawkins' arguments before he ever made them. What is interesting to me is that apologetics also tends to refute attacks on science such as creationism. The basic argument is that scientific knowledge should strengthen faith and fighting the obvious goes against St. Paul's urging to do nothing that would harm your brother's growth in faith to take up such a ridiculous cause. For this reason, the greater maturity of apologetics, I expect the creationism debate to be settled within the Church rather than through public debate with scientists, which isn't scientific debate at all. The arguments are simply stronger in apologetics. However, to see this work, there has to be much less pride within the church. I know clergy who just role their eyes at the creationism issue which, I think, puts them is a poor position to look on the creationists as brothers, a first step to having concern for their weak faith.
Actually my preist covers this sort of thing pretty often since it comes up in the readings. Quite a lot of the clergy in the Episcopal Church are influenced by C. S. Lewis and so consider these issues. Suprised By Joy is the place where he discusses his conversion in detail. Much of it is driven by just these sorts of considerations. The site you give is quite interesting. The exerpt from McGrath's new book is is quite to the point in this discussion.
Evolution, rightly, avoids discussion of final causes. Theology can't avoid them. Yet, there is inevitability in evolution towards increased diversity while theology has little authority, by its own admission, to dictate to God how things ought to be accomplished.
I gave a lecture course in Astronomy one summer. I order to get a complete survey of the students, I passed it out before the final. Needless to say, no matter how bad I was at lecturing, there was definite downward pressure on the results owing to my timing. The Department Chair spoke to me about it saying he'd never gotten such a high completion rate and that it was a good thing I was a grad student because if I was faculty I'd be in trouble. Actually, it was two older students who had a large number of complaints (like having to come to class).
s hdot-users-selling-solar.html
When students judge performance you get some good feedback, but much of my later and better lecturing was improved by just having a better grasp of the subject. I find that the best teachers are the ones who enjoy how other people learn. Putting money into opening up this mode of enjoyment would probably be well spent.
--
Now Icarus....http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/sla
Well, actually most models I've seen move up and to the left until turnoff. I was not all that happy with the movie because when you set it to one solar mass if givens the wrong luminosity and lifetime but it does get the basics of the evolutionary track. Here is another link that looks like what I remember from grad school, though without references http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/feb23/LMS.htm l. At higher mass what you say may be true. Fig. 10.3 in this link http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/Stars/l10.html shows a 5 solar mass star behaving as you describe.
My mistake was getting the direction of the axis wrong, something every one of my teachers has warned me about.
I know of one person who returned a computer within 15 days because Vista would not run or install basic VOIP software.
One of his big problems was getting flash to work with a 64 bit browser. He solved this by going to a 32 bit browser. It is also possible to wrap the 32 bit flash binary using nspluginwrapper http://gwenole.beauchesne.info/projects/nspluginwr apper/ which
works OK most of the time using 64 bit Seamonkey and FC6.s -selling-solar.html
--
Flash on solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
The mass is not changing much, just the number of particles supporting the star against collapse. This means that T goes up to keep P constant in the ideal gas law eqn. This is a slow process so that main sequence evolution is much less dramatic than earlier or later phases. This link to the movie I posted shows a main sequence to red giant evolutionary track. In the movie, the latter phase is much much faster than the main sequence portion. This initial turn off from the main sequence (the perpendicular motion) is driven by the loss of thermotatic control of the core temperature provided by fusion. The core temperature increases, increasing the contribution of radiation which lifts the envelope. The size of the star increase in a way that means that even though the luminosity is increasing the temperature goes down. Mass loss does come into play later.
Actually they do, only very slowly. There is a famous problem called the Faint Young Sun Paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_parad ox that requires extra greenhouse gasses early on for its resolution. Why does the
Sun slowly brighten? Basically the central mean molecular weight (bad term) increases as hydrogen is converted to helium. This means
more energetic collisions and faster fusion.s -selling-solar.html
--
Get fusion power faster: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I like all three. That Hideous Strength goes more into the banality of evil on an organized scale. Weston's tricks in Perlandra are writ large in the third book. Lewis also develops the idea of the inner circle as a entry into evil in the third book of the trilogy.s -selling-solar.html
--
The power of Arbol: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
May you grow in faith.
At least for potestants who take St. Paul seriously, it is Grace that supports or allows belief. That would be a two ways street. But, many theologians do identify something in the soul that also seeks God. C. S. Lewis was interested in this and looked at levels of inclination such as loyalty to country, animal's attraction to their keepers as well as darker attractions. His book That Hideous Strength is a good read. Finding some hardwiring for this would not be too suprising I think. I'd imagine that is would be related to things like filial piety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_piety which actually comes in as a commandment.s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2007-03-01_629255273 01054/tv/mpfc/stand_and_deliver.wav Cleese: The Circus!
Ooops. Astonomers do everything mixed up and backwards because they don't know what is happening when they first start making plots. I've made a classic mistake above. Temperature increases to the left in the H-R diagram so stars get hotter as they evolve on the main sequence. They get cooler as they move off the main sequence to the right and become red giants.
You'll see in my comments to this post http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/0 9/2111213 that I am seeking collaborators
to do just that. The idea is to use Fe fertilization to create new and profitable fisheries while at the same time removing CO2 from the
atmosphere. You can get in touch through my home page it you are interested.
Enhanced biological methods would appear to be the only way to conduct the experiment. Other means would take too long.
I think we actually agree. I reread my post and it clear to me that I said that the lab work shows causation. I would go further and say that our understanding that the sturcture of planetary atmospheres is essentially a priori when the spectra of their costituents is taken as given. An argon atmosphere would be very similar to no atmosphere at all owing to argon's high ionization potential and few transitions. It is the forest of mid-infrared rotational-vibrational transitions from molecules with many degrees of freedom that provides the warming of the surface above what it would be otherwise.
s -selling-solar.html
It is important to distinguish between deduction and inference so that we know the limits of our knowledge. The geologic record is largely consistent with our deductive understanding so we may interpret it as supportive but there is insufficient information there to draw the strongest conclusions. For that, we rely on the lab.
--
Catch the Sun: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user